Author Topic: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)  (Read 96552 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Terpfan76

  • Posts: 3924
  • ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2025: January 02, 2013, 01:05:02 PM »
I never said vick was a good  passer, just that RG3 is closer to him than young in terms of run first vs pass first. By the way, Young, for his career averaged 4.3 rush attempts per game (4.8 in 1992), Vick for his career is at 6.5 (7.5 in 02, 8 in 03 and 04 when he was at his best), pro-football-reference has RG3 at 8 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GrifRo01.htm), so if you consider Vick a rusher (most do), the RG3 falls into the same category

My mistake on the math as I was thinking in terms of a 16 game season and not 15. Look, I just disagree with the Vick comparison and the idea that he's a running qb because it marginalizes his abilities as a passer. The guy is turning into a complete qb and a potential game changer. The other big difference between Vick and Griffin is that once the play broke down, Vick just took off and ran. On the other hand, Griffin, looks to buy time and keeps his eyes downfield looking for a receiver and only runs when it's the best option. That is a huge difference. As he gets older and more experienced, I expect to see his number of carries to drop.

Offline Terpfan76

  • Posts: 3924
  • ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2026: January 02, 2013, 01:05:53 PM »
Snyder being GM or with an awful GM was a train wreck, but Snyder with a competent GM will be a great owner since his job will amount to saying yes.

Now that I think, we can all agree on 100%.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21603
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2027: January 02, 2013, 01:09:57 PM »
My mistake on the math as I was thinking in terms of a 16 game season and not 15. Look, I just disagree with the Vick comparison and the idea that he's a running qb because it marginalizes his abilities as a passer. The guy is turning into a complete qb and a potential game changer. The other big difference between Vick and Griffin is that once the play broke down, Vick just took off and ran. On the other hand, Griffin, looks to buy time and keeps his eyes downfield looking for a receiver and only runs when it's the best option. That is a huge difference. As he gets older and more experienced, I expect to see his number of carries to drop.

I don't think it marginalizes him, Vick with a brain and an accurate arm would have been a first ballot HOF and in the conversation for greatest quarterback ever. Those two deficiencies in Vick are what I like about Griffen- he's a track star who can run with the best of them, but he also graduate early and went a head and finished his first year of law school while a starting QB in the Big 12, and he's already one of the more accurate passers in the league.

Offline Terpfan76

  • Posts: 3924
  • ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2028: January 02, 2013, 01:20:24 PM »
I don't think it marginalizes him, Vick with a brain and an accurate arm would have been a first ballot HOF and in the conversation for greatest quarterback ever. Those two deficiencies in Vick are what I like about Griffen- he's a track star who can run with the best of them, but he also graduate early and went a head and finished his first year of law school while a starting QB in the Big 12, and he's already one of the more accurate passers in the league.

OK, I see where you're coming from. I think most people assume when you compare him to Vick that he's a run first, pass second qb when nothing could be further from the truth. I also made that assumption which it turns out would be false. The sky is the limit for Griffin.

Offline PebbleBall

  • Posts: 3440
  • Now that right there is baseball.
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2029: January 02, 2013, 01:21:10 PM »
Andrew Luck? He's improved a team by 9 games as a rookie pocket passer.

You're saying Andrew Luck is fully developed? 

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21603
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2030: January 02, 2013, 01:26:33 PM »
developed enough

Offline Terpfan76

  • Posts: 3924
  • ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2031: January 02, 2013, 01:34:21 PM »
developed enough

He did come out of a prostyle offense in college. I don't think too many people would argue that he was considered the most ready to play coming out of college and the best prospect since P. Manning if not Elway. Griffin shot up the boards during his senior season and then the combine show he put on.

Offline PebbleBall

  • Posts: 3440
  • Now that right there is baseball.
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2032: January 02, 2013, 01:34:39 PM »
developed enough

I agree, but I was asking MDS why he thinks Griffin won't be able to make a transition to pocket passer if/when his running ability declines.  It has nothing to do with Andrew Luck. 

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 15101
  • Captain Sadness
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2033: January 02, 2013, 01:51:01 PM »
I agree, but I was asking MDS why he thinks Griffin won't be able to make a transition to pocket passer if/when his running ability declines.
He could, sure.  So could Russell Wilson (doubtful given his height) or Cam Newton (:crackup:).  Will any of the three of them be the home run hitters they are now if they go that route instead of the read-option/tuck-and-run/miracle scramble route?  No, which is my point.  One of the plays some of the ES sect gets freak nasty over (the dump off while being tackled TD) could have just as easily have been a scoop-and-score pick 6 as a TD. 

As HalfSmokes said - I see him as a better (read: much, much, much smarter) version of 2002-2003 Michael Vick.  But injuries have ended (or halted) many, many promising careers so I'm not sure betting the farm on a guy that, right now, shines on crazy scrambles and the read-option is something I'd do.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21603
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2034: January 02, 2013, 02:00:01 PM »
The funny thing is, he may be the second best QB on the NFC side of the playoffs this year (I'd easily take him over Wilson, Ponder, or Capernick). I'd probably take him over Ryan, so that just leaves Rogers. To the extent that you believe the best qbs win in the playoffs, we're in good shape.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2035: January 02, 2013, 02:03:16 PM »

Been paying attention much? :lol: It has to do with his hatred for Shanny and Rexy. Irrational? yes!


I see Spidey. If it was just an illusion though, why did high price FAs keep signing here?

They kept signing here because the salary cap enabled them to get the guaranteed money of signing bonuses up front that they desperately want. Haynesworth only got about 1/3 of the money of the contract (too much IMO) but all you heard was that he was a $100+ million bust. Haynesworth didn't get anywhere near the money that he was said to have gotten. The same can be said of other players that signed here. Oftentimes some of the backloaded money would be converted into another signing bonus in a restructured deal so that (hypothetically) you would hear of a player signing 2 separate deals of $75 and $65 million (that sounds like $140 million) but the player would only get about $80 of that during his stay in Washington.

I guess what I was getting at was that if you are Shanny and you tell Dan Snyder you want player X, more than likely you're going to get player X. There's something to be said for that.

You'll get no argument from me on that. We're equally on board that it's beneficial to the team to have an owner willing to pay players as long as he's not the one deciding which players to bring on board.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2036: January 02, 2013, 02:08:03 PM »
I don't think it marginalizes him, Vick with a brain and an accurate arm would have been a first ballot HOF and in the conversation for greatest quarterback ever. 

:lol:  I suppose the same could be said of the Scarecrow.

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 63095
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2037: January 02, 2013, 02:25:16 PM »
Oh, no doubt, but let's be honest - would the Klanahan's be heralded as genii by the ExtremeSkins and Kool-Ade Krowd if not for landing a once-in-a-lifetime talent?  Look at their track record of success before landing RG3...

As far as Diabeetus Cutler goes - I'm still holding on to the hope he can be mediocre, something that can't be said for the last 60 years of Bears QBs.

And since when do we care about ExtremeSkins? It's funny, but no one can read my posts in there. I can quote them and they get a notification, but no one sees them apparently. Meh well.

DC was better than Grossman and Grossman went to the Superb Owl. Methinks there are other issues in the Windy City of Murder

Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 11497
  • Sunshine Squad 2022
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2038: January 02, 2013, 02:31:32 PM »
Less nagging.

More appreciation in preparation for the Redskins skull freaking the Seahawks Sunday.

PLAYOFFS nag! :whip:

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21603
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2039: January 02, 2013, 02:36:18 PM »
I'm still trying to figure out why everyone thinks the seahawks are so good. Yes they are really good at home- both of their big wins (49ers and refs giving them the GB victory) where there. Their road wins are Bills, Bears, Panthers (none of which are playoff teams) with losses to the Cards, Rams, 49ers, Lions, and Fins. Basically, they've beaten no one decent on the road and lost to some atrocious teams on the road. 

Offline Terpfan76

  • Posts: 3924
  • ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2040: January 02, 2013, 02:41:29 PM »
I'm still trying to figure out why everyone thinks the seahawks are so good. Yes they are really good at home- both of their big wins (49ers and refs giving them the GB victory) where there. Their road wins are Bills, Bears, Panthers (none of which are playoff teams) with losses to the Cards, Rams, 49ers, Lions, and Fins. Basically, they've beaten no one decent on the road and lost to some atrocious teams on the road. 

Their defense is tough and they have a stout running game. Wilson has played very well and our defense, especially the secondary, leaves  much to be desired. That being said, bias or not, I like our coaching staff a lot. They've done a great job over the latter half of the season in making second half adjustments on both sides of the ball. Obviously we are lacking on talent and speed on defense, but somehow, players are in the right place to make plays. Whether it's luck, skill, coaching or some combination of the III, I'll take it. I think it'll be a tough game and I fell it's too close to call. Best thing we can do is pound the rock and keep their offense off of the field.

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 63095
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2041: January 02, 2013, 02:43:03 PM »
Less nagging.

More appreciation in preparation for the Redskins skull freaking the Seahawks Sunday.

PLAYOFFS nag! :whip:

We're going to lose. We're going to be destroyed at home by perhaps the best team in the NFC. Oh well, already surpassed expectations

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2042: January 02, 2013, 02:48:19 PM »
And since when do we care about ExtremeSkins? It's funny, but no one can read my posts in there. I can quote them and they get a notification, but no one sees them apparently. Meh well.


Maybe you're on "probation". The mods there make the ones here seem open minded.  :stir:  :lol:

I'm still trying to figure out why everyone thinks the seahawks are so good. Yes they are really good at home- both of their big wins (49ers and refs giving them the GB victory) where there. Their road wins are Bills, Bears, Panthers (none of which are playoff teams) with losses to the Cards, Rams, 49ers, Lions, and Fins. Basically, they've beaten no one decent on the road and lost to some atrocious teams on the road. 

The Skins are going to slap the Seahawks around this weekend.

Offline Nathan

  • Posts: 10726
  • Wow. Such warnings. Very baseball. Moderator Doge.
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2043: January 02, 2013, 02:53:24 PM »
:roll: :lol:

Offline PC

  • Posts: 47236
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2044: January 02, 2013, 03:02:10 PM »
We're going to lose. We're going to be destroyed at home by perhaps the best team in the NFC. Oh well, already surpassed expectations

Your prognostication skill:

I got a bad feeling about this game. Can't shake it. RG3 is dinged up. Gomes is dinged up. And the Cowboys are playing great on offense right now. All it takes is their defense to step up marginally along with RG3's gimpy knee and we aren't going to be able to score as many points as last time. Second time they've faced him, they know what to expect

The Seahawks are a creation, primarily, of their home stadium.  They are a completely different team on the road.

Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 11497
  • Sunshine Squad 2022
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2045: January 02, 2013, 03:08:34 PM »
WE'RE GOING TO freakING DESTROY THEM!

Believe In The Sleeve!

Offline sportsfan882

  • Posts: 93631
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2046: January 02, 2013, 03:30:38 PM »
The Redskins are better than Seattle. And we are at home. We should win.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33783
  • Hell yes!
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2047: January 02, 2013, 05:33:29 PM »
Maybe you're on "probation". The mods here are completely awesome by comparison.    :clap:



 :bow:

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33783
  • Hell yes!
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2048: January 02, 2013, 05:34:52 PM »


The Seahawks are a creation, primarily, of their home stadium.  They are a completely different team on the road.

They have the patently unfair parabolic sound reflecting roof, designed to magnify the crowd noise down to the field. 

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 63095
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: Washington Redskins Thread (2012)
« Reply #2049: January 02, 2013, 06:07:21 PM »
Maybe you're on "probation". The mods there make the ones here seem open minded.  :stir:  :lol:

The Skins are going to slap the Seahawks around this weekend.

It's been over a year. The only time I got an answer was when I attempted to make another account.